Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mitsubishi Motors, 5894-5896 [E9-2107]
Download as PDF
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
5894
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices
The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX
is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates
experienced by these lines with
installation of the PASS-Key III+ device
demonstrate the effectiveness of the
device. The agency agrees that the
device is substantially similar to devices
for which the agency has previously
approved exemptions.
GM’s proposed device, as well as
other comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible
or visible alarm. Therefore, these
devices cannot perform one of the
functions listed in 49 CFR part
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to
unauthorized attempts to enter or move
the vehicle. Based on comparison of the
reduction in the theft rates of GM
vehicles using a passive theft deterrent
device with an audible/visible alarm
system to the reduction in theft rates for
GM vehicle models equipped with a
passive antitheft device without an
alarm, GM finds that the lack of an
alarm or attention attracting device does
not compromise the theft deterrent
performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. In past petitions, the agency
has concluded that the lack of a visual
or audio alarm has not prevented these
antitheft devices from being effective
protection against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, GM
believes that the antitheft device (PASSKey III+) for model years 2010 and later
will provide essentially the same
functions and features as found on its
MY 2005–2009 PASS-Key III device and
therefore, its modified device will
provide at least the same level of theft
prevention as parts-marking. GM
believes that the antitheft device
proposed for installation on its MY 2010
Buick LaCrosse is likely to be as
effective in reducing thefts as
compliance with the parts marking
requirements of part 541.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of part 543.6, GM
provided information on the reliability
and durability of the proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device, GM conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. GM
provided a detailed list of the tests
conducted and believes that the device
is reliable and durable since it complied
with the specified requirements for each
test. GM also stated that since the
authorization code is not handled or
contacted by the vehicle operator, the
reliability of the PASS-Key III+ is
significantly improved over the PASSKey and PASS-Key II devices. This
reliability allows the system to return to
the ‘‘Go/No Go’’ based system,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:03 Jan 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
eliminating the ‘‘fail enabled’’ mode of
operation.
The agency has evaluated GM’s MY
2010 petition to modify the exemption
for the Buick LaCrosse vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49
CFR part 541, and has decided to grant
it. It has determined that the PASS-Key
III+ system is likely to be as effective as
parts-marking in preventing and
deterring theft of these vehicles, and
therefore qualifies for an exemption
under 49 CFR part 543. The agency
believes that the proposed device will
continue to provide four of the five
types of performance listed in
§ 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of
the device by unauthorized persons;
preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
If GM decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully
marked according to the requirements
under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: January 27, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–2106 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Mitsubishi Motors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America
(Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of
the Mitsubishi Lancer vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted
because the agency has determined that
the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part
541). Mitsubishi requested confidential
treatment for some of the information
and attachments it submitted in support
of its petition. The agency will address
Mitsubishi’s request for confidential
treatment by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2010 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard’s phone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated September 26, 2008,
Mitsubishi requested exemption from
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part
541) for the Mitsubishi Lancer vehicle
line beginning with MY 2010. The
petition requested an exemption from
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment for the entire
vehicle line.
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant an exemption
for one vehicle line per model year. In
its petition, Mitsubishi provided a
detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device for
the Lancer vehicle line. Mitsubishi will
install a passive, transponder-based,
electronic engine immobilizer device as
standard equipment on its Lancer
vehicle line beginning with MY 2010.
Features of the antitheft device will
include an electronic key, electronic
control unit (ECU), and a passive
immobilizer. Mitsubishi will also
incorporate an alarm system as standard
equipment on all Lancer models, except
for the DE models, which will offer an
optional alarm system. However, based
on the declining theft rate experience of
other vehicles equipped with devices
that do not have an audio or visual
alarm for which NHTSA has already
exempted from the parts-marking
requirements, the agency has concluded
that the absence of a visual or audio
alarm has not prevented these antitheft
devices from being effective protection
against theft. Mitsubishi’s submission is
considered a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it
meets the general requirements
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices
contained in 543.5 and the specific
content requirements of 543.6.
Mitsubishi further explained that
entry models for the Lancer vehicle line
will be equipped with an immobilizer
that functions via a Wireless Control
Module (WCM). Mitsubishi stated that
this is a keyless entry system in which
the transponder is located in a
traditional key that must be inserted
into the key cylinder in order to activate
the ignition. All other models of the
Lancer vehicle line are equipped with
an immobilizer that functions via a
Keyless Operation System (KOS), which
utilizes a keyless system that allows the
driver to push a knob in the steering
lock unit to activate the ignition (instead
of using a traditional key in the key
cylinder) as long as the transponder is
located in close proximity to the driver
inside the vehicle. Mitsubishi stated
that the construction and performance
of the immobilizer will be the same in
all models whether the vehicle has a
WCM or KOS entry system. Mitsubishi
further stated that the only difference
between the two keyless entry systems
is the ‘‘key’’ and the method used to
transmit the information from the key to
the immobilizer.
Specifically, once the ignition switch
is turned to the ‘‘on’’ position, the
transceiver module reads the specific
ignition key code for the vehicle and
transmits an encrypted message
containing the key code to the electronic
control unit (ECU). The immobilizer
receives the key code signal transmitted
from either type of key (WCM or KOS)
and verifies that the key code signal is
correct. The immobilizer then sends a
separate encrypted start-code signal to
the engine ECU to allow the driver to
start the vehicle. The power train only
will function if the key code matches
the unique identification key code
previously programmed into the ECU. If
the codes do not match, the power train
engine and fuel system will be disabled.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of 543.6, Mitsubishi
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device, Mitsubishi conducted tests
based on its own specified standards.
Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of
the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the
device complied with its specific
requirements for each test. Mitsubishi
additionally stated that its immobilizer
system is further enhanced by several
factors making it very difficult to defeat.
Specifically, Mitsubishi stated that
communication between the
transponder and the ECU are encrypted
and have trillions of different possible
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:03 Jan 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
key codes that make successful key code
duplication virtually impossible.
Mitsubishi also stated that its
immobilizer system and the ECU share
security data during vehicle assembly
that make them a matched set. These
matched modules will not function if
taken out and reinstalled separately on
other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated
that it is impossible to mechanically
override the system and start the vehicle
because the vehicle will not be able to
start without the transmission of the
specific code to the electronic control
module. Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that
the antitheft device is extremely reliable
and durable because there are no
moving parts, nor does the key require
a separate battery.
Mitsubishi informed the agency that
the Lancer vehicle line was first
equipped with the proposed device
beginning with its MY 2008 vehicles.
Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the
agency that its Eclipse vehicle line has
been equipped with the device
beginning with its MY 2000 vehicles.
Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for
the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by
almost 42% when compared with that
of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse
(unequipped with an immobilizer
device). Mitsubishi also revealed that
the Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines
have been equipped with a similar type
of immobilizer device since January and
April 2004 respectively. The Mitsubishi
Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines were
both granted parts-marking exemptions
by the agency and the average theft rates
using 3 MY’s data is 4.4173 and 2.9564
respectively. Therefore, Mitsubishi has
concluded that the antitheft device
proposed for its vehicle line is no less
effective than those devices in the lines
for which NHTSA has already granted
full exemption from the parts-marking
requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Mitsubishi, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Lancer vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a
petition for an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of part 541
either in whole or in part, if it
determines that, based upon substantial
evidence, the standard equipment
antitheft device is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of part
541. The agency finds that Mitsubishi
has provided adequate reasons for its
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5895
belief that the antitheft device will
reduce and deter theft. This conclusion
is based on the information Mitsubishi
provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device
will provide four of the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; preventing defeat
or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Mitsubishi’s
petition for exemption for the Lancer
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The
agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
Appendix A–1, identifies those lines
that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model
year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release
of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is
necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
If Mitsubishi decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it must formally
notify the agency, and, thereafter, the
line must be fully marked as required by
49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking
of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi
wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is
based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. part
543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption
applies only to vehicles that belong to
a line exempted under this part and
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an
exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to but differing
from the one specified in that
exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend part 543 to
require the submission of a modification
petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft
device. The significance of many such
changes could be de minimis. Therefore,
NHTSA suggests that if the
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5896
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices
manufacturer contemplates making any
changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: January 27, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–2107 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Board’s decision is available for
inspection or copying at the Board’s
Public Docket Room, Room 131, 395
E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001, and is posted on the Board’s Web
site, https://www.stb.dot.gov.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we
conclude that our action in this
proceeding will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action
will not significantly affect either the
quality of the human environment or
the conservation of energy resources.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10101(14); 49 U.S.C.
10704(a)(2)–(3).
Surface Transportation Board
Decided: January 23, 2009.
By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice
Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner
Buttrey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–2185 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
[STB Ex Parte No. 664 (Sub-No. 1)]
Use of a Multi-Stage Discontinued
Cash Flow Model in Determining the
Railroad Industry’s Cost of Capital
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
Notice of Final Decision.
SUMMARY: By a decision served on
January 28, 2009, the Board modified its
methodology for determining the cost of
capital for the railroad industry by
adopting the average of the estimates
produced by its Capital Asset Pricing
Model (CAPM) with the Morningstar/
Ibbotson multi-stage Discontinued Cash
Flow (DCF) model to estimate the
railroad industry’s cost of equity.
DATES: This action is effective on
January 28, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy J. Strafford, (202) 245–0356.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board
has been thoroughly reviewing its
regulatory processes for determining the
railroad industry’s cost of capital. The
overall cost of capital is determined
through the use of two figures: The cost
of debt and the cost of equity. The cost
of debt is readily available and
observable; however, the cost of equity
is not and must be estimated using a
finance model. The Board determined in
a decision served on January 28, 2009,
the combination of finance models that
it found best depicts the cost of equity,
and thereby the cost of capital. In that
decision, the Board revised its
methodology for determining the cost of
capital for the railroad industry by
adopting the average of CAPM and the
Morningstar/Ibbotson multi-stage DCF
model.
Additional information is contained
in the Board’s decision. A copy of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:03 Jan 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Open Meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer
Advocacy Panel (Including the States
of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin)
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area
4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy
Panel is soliciting public comment,
ideas, and suggestions on improving
customer service at the Internal Revenue
Service.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Tuesday, March 17, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227, or
(414) 231–2360.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given pursuant to Section
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)
that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer
Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday,
March 17, 2009, at 1 p.m. Central Time.
For more information, please contact
Ellen Smiley. Ms. Smiley may be
reached at 1–888–912–1227, or (414)
231–2360, or you can submit written
comments to the panel by faxing the
comments to (414) 231–2363, or by mail
to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop
1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue,
Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or you can
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
post comments to the Web site at
https://www.improveirs.org.
The agenda will include the
following: Various IRS issues.
Dated: January 27, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9–2101 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND
SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Open Public Hearing
AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
ACTION: Notice of open public hearing—
March 4, 2009, Washington, DC.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
following hearing of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review
Commission.
Name: Carolyn Bartholomew,
Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by
Congress to investigate, assess, and
report to Congress annually on ‘‘the
national security implications of the
economic relationship between the
United States and the People’s Republic
of China.’’
Pursuant to this mandate, the
Commission will hold a public hearing
in Washington, DC on March 4, 2009 to
address ‘‘China’s Military and Security
Activities Abroad.’’
Background
This event is the second in a series of
public hearings the Commission will
hold during its 2009 report cycle to
collect input from leading academic,
industry, and government experts on
national security implications of the
U.S. bilateral trade and economic
relationship with China. The March 4
hearing will examine the People’s
Liberation Army’s domestic and foreign
activities and orientation, China’s
expanding military and security
influence, China’s military operations
abroad, and China’s conventional arm
sales.
The March 4 hearing will be Cochaired by Commission Chairman
Carolyn Bartholomew and Vice
Chairman Larry M. Wortzel.
Information on hearings, as well as
transcripts of past Commission hearings,
can be obtained from the USCC Web site
https://www.uscc.gov.
Copies of the hearing agenda will be
made available on the Commission’s
Web site https://www.uscc.gov as soon as
available. Any interested party may file
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5894-5896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mitsubishi Motors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mitsubishi Motors R&D of
America (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi Lancer
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
Mitsubishi requested confidential treatment for some of the information
and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. The agency
will address Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment by
separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2010 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 26, 2008,
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Mitsubishi
Lancer vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. The petition requested an
exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an
antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Mitsubishi provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
Lancer vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive, transponder-
based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment on
its Lancer vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. Features of the
antitheft device will include an electronic key, electronic control
unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi will also incorporate
an alarm system as standard equipment on all Lancer models, except for
the DE models, which will offer an optional alarm system. However,
based on the declining theft rate experience of other vehicles equipped
with devices that do not have an audio or visual alarm for which NHTSA
has already exempted from the parts-marking requirements, the agency
has concluded that the absence of a visual or audio alarm has not
prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection
against theft. Mitsubishi's submission is considered a complete
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements
[[Page 5895]]
contained in 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
Mitsubishi further explained that entry models for the Lancer
vehicle line will be equipped with an immobilizer that functions via a
Wireless Control Module (WCM). Mitsubishi stated that this is a keyless
entry system in which the transponder is located in a traditional key
that must be inserted into the key cylinder in order to activate the
ignition. All other models of the Lancer vehicle line are equipped with
an immobilizer that functions via a Keyless Operation System (KOS),
which utilizes a keyless system that allows the driver to push a knob
in the steering lock unit to activate the ignition (instead of using a
traditional key in the key cylinder) as long as the transponder is
located in close proximity to the driver inside the vehicle. Mitsubishi
stated that the construction and performance of the immobilizer will be
the same in all models whether the vehicle has a WCM or KOS entry
system. Mitsubishi further stated that the only difference between the
two keyless entry systems is the ``key'' and the method used to
transmit the information from the key to the immobilizer.
Specifically, once the ignition switch is turned to the ``on''
position, the transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code
for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message containing the key
code to the electronic control unit (ECU). The immobilizer receives the
key code signal transmitted from either type of key (WCM or KOS) and
verifies that the key code signal is correct. The immobilizer then
sends a separate encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU to allow
the driver to start the vehicle. The power train only will function if
the key code matches the unique identification key code previously
programmed into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the power train
engine and fuel system will be disabled.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6,
Mitsubishi provided information on the reliability and durability of
its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Mitsubishi conducted tests based on its own specified
standards. Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of the tests conducted
and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device
complied with its specific requirements for each test. Mitsubishi
additionally stated that its immobilizer system is further enhanced by
several factors making it very difficult to defeat. Specifically,
Mitsubishi stated that communication between the transponder and the
ECU are encrypted and have trillions of different possible key codes
that make successful key code duplication virtually impossible.
Mitsubishi also stated that its immobilizer system and the ECU share
security data during vehicle assembly that make them a matched set.
These matched modules will not function if taken out and reinstalled
separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that it is
impossible to mechanically override the system and start the vehicle
because the vehicle will not be able to start without the transmission
of the specific code to the electronic control module. Lastly,
Mitsubishi stated that the antitheft device is extremely reliable and
durable because there are no moving parts, nor does the key require a
separate battery.
Mitsubishi informed the agency that the Lancer vehicle line was
first equipped with the proposed device beginning with its MY 2008
vehicles. Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the agency that its Eclipse
vehicle line has been equipped with the device beginning with its MY
2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for the MY 2000
Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of its MY 1999
Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device). Mitsubishi
also revealed that the Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines have been
equipped with a similar type of immobilizer device since January and
April 2004 respectively. The Mitsubishi Galant and Endeavor vehicle
lines were both granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency and the
average theft rates using 3 MY's data is 4.4173 and 2.9564
respectively. Therefore, Mitsubishi has concluded that the antitheft
device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those
devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption
from the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by Mitsubishi, the agency believes
that the antitheft device for the Lancer vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is
based on the information Mitsubishi provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption for the Lancer vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes
that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are
exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49
CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the
release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for
which the petition is granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement
agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be
fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of
major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. part 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
[[Page 5896]]
manufacturer contemplates making any changes the effects of which might
be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: January 27, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-2107 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P